BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 20 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 06.02.2018.
Date of Order: 15.01.2019.
Deepak Yadav son of Shri Shish Ram, resident of village Dinod, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Taal Mobile Shop 54 Adarsh College Market, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
2. Service Centre: 0001477086 – Kapil Enterprises, Address: Dinod Gate, Circular Road, Bhiwani -127021 through its Proprietor.
3. Head office – Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF, Ph.-V, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122202, Phone-124-4881234.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
OPs No. 1 and 2 already exparte.
Shri R. K. Verma, Advocate for the OP No. 3.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased Samsung-J7 Prime mobile set bearing IMEI No.358972087424519 vide bill No. 1063 dated 1.11.2017 for Rs. 14,900/- from OP No. 1. It is alleged that the mobile set starting giving problems just after its purchase i.e. not giving clear voice through ear phone. It is further alleged that when complainant approached the OP No. 1 with the request to repair the same, the OP No. 1 refused to repair the same and asked to approach the OP No. 2. It is further alleged that the complainant approached OP No. 2 for the repair of his mobile set, who deposited the mobile set and issued the job sheet dated 29.1.2018. It is further alleged that the OP No. 2 demanded Rs.6600/-, Rs.6000/- & Rs.5000/- for the repair of the same by saying that mobile set become defective due to water logging. It is further alleged that the OP No.2 has harassed the complainant and also misbehaved with the complainant. It is further alleged that the mobile set is still with the OP No. 2. It is further alleged that the OPs have failed to repair/replace the mobile set within warranty period, despite several requests. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, no one appeared on behalf of OP No.1 & 2 despite service and they were proceeded against exparte by the Forum vide its order dated 27.3.2018.
3. OP No. 3 on appearance filed contested written statement denying the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. It is alleged that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain & adjudicate the present complaint, as answering OP has its registered office at New Delhi and accordingly complaint is liable to be rejected on this ground. It is further alleged that the answering OP has provided services to complainant as and when required. It is further alleged that complainant has approached the service centre on 29.1.2018 vide call no.4254005337 and reported hand free volume not clear in his unit and the engineer of the service centre resolved the issue by replacement of tape and hand fee of the unit and also software of the unit got updated and the unit started working OK and the complainant took the delivery of unit to his full satisfaction and after that the complainant without any cause of action directly filed the present complaint. It is further alleged that the answering OP has its service centre throughout the country and if there is any issue the complainant must approach to any of the service centre, but the complainant directly filed this complaint. It is further alleged that the answering OP provides one year warranty, subject to some terms & conditions and warranty becomes void if liquid logged/water logging, physically damage, serial no. missing, tampering and mishandling/burnt etc. It is further alleged that warranty means repair or part will be replaced during the warranty period. It is further alleged that the answering OP never denied to provide its services to the complainant, as assured under the terms of warranty. It is further alleged that the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set. It is further alleged that as per condition of warranty the replacement of product or refund is expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of part. It is further alleged that the complainant not filed any report of an expert as required under law. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit & copy of bill as Annexure C-1, copy of job sheet as Annexure C2 in his evidence to prove his version and close the evidence.
5. Ld. counsel for the OP No. 3 has filed duly sworn affidavit and a warranty card as Annexure R1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard complainant and ld. counsel for the OP No. 3 at length and gone through the case file carefully.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The plea taken by the OPs is that the mobile in question has become defective due to water logging, is not tenable at all, because they have failed to produce any report of engineer to show that the mobile in question has become due to water logging. The complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record copy of bill and copy of job sheet. From bare perusal of the job sheet, it is clear that complainant approached the OPs with the request to repair/replace the mobile set, but the OPs have failed in redressing the complaint of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is also proved on the file that the complainant has deposited the mobile set with OP No. 2 on 29.1.2018 for repair and complainant thereafter contacted the OPs many times to return the mobile, but the OPs have failed in repair the mobile set. It appears that the OPs have nothing to say in this case to controvert the stand taken by the complainant.
8. Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs and the OPs are directed: -
i. To pay Rs.14,900/- towards cost of mobile set along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.
- pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and hardship as well as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. In case of default, the OP shall liable to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i & ii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 15.1.2019. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 15.01.2019.
(Renu Chaudhary) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
